OK, team. Let's start from fundamentals: The OP, which I am responding to states:
" My local primary school has been given a glowing report from ofsted however many of my neighbours think its a bit rough and not a good school. I liked the feel of it when I looked round but not so happy with the position (on main road/ near railway). The catchment area is variable from middle class to a fairly expansive estate with a bad repuatation. If you just looke at the ofsted report you wold think it was perfect but so many people have out me off."
My answer was:
"OFSTEDs do what they say on the tin.
For example, a local secondary is described as 'Satisfactory'. Local lore has it that the school is AWFUL. Well, when you read the OFSTED, the report is correct. We have to read these things for what they are.
Example: YR 7 maths- 'Good'. The teacher laid out clearly the teaching objectives of the lesson at the beginning. She used several different ways to illustrate her lesson; she extended the more able of the children and used alternative teaching methods for the less able. She then questioned the group to ascertain what they'd learned.
All sounds 'good', doesn't it? And it surely is- BUT what if the lesson she was teaching 11 year olds was basic addition skills? 7+11=?. The DCs at the school enter with 'a skills base much below that expected of similar children nationally'. SO the school is trying its best with a 'difficult' catchment.
So our lesson is that, as OFSTED states, the school is doing as well as it can be expected within the boundaries of the intellect of its intake. But that doesn't mean the intake is any less likely to be a product of its deprived, neglected home environment."
I am explaining why an school's OFSTED can be 'good' yet the local perception of that school is that it's 'poor'.
The school in question which I have used as an example to illustrate my point is in what I feel many of us would describe as a 'rough' area. It exhibits all the indicators of social and financial deprivation. However, the school is doing what it's paid to do. In its teaching, it has:
A) laid down the expectations to the class from the outset
B) taught using several different methodologies in an attempt to include every DC's 'learning style'
C) It challenged the more able by extending them
D) It recapped at the end to ensure a learning experience had taken place.
However, because of the deprived family backgrounds from which many of the DCs hail- to spell it out, backgrounds that do not support education, do not support discipline, do not instil responsibility, those DCs arrive at the school with 'below average attainment'. I'm not making this up. The DCs are tested, same as yours and mine are upon their arrival at school- becasue of these factors, the DCs observed in the lesson are learning what we MIGHT consider pretty basic stuff.
The OFSTED correctly identifies that a Satisfactory/Good whatever lesson has been observed. This is what they write in their OFSTED report.
I personally would not want my 11 year old sharing a maths classroom with a DC who could not add 7+11. My DC would be more likely to encounter a class where this was the 'norm' in a school situated in a socially and financially deprived neighbourhood. It does not mean the DCs from such an area are necessarily 'thick' by any means. If a bright DC isn't doing well in that environment, it implies that the factors that ensure successful learning are not present in its life.
Personally, I would visit each and every option school and seek to select one which, amongst all the other factors, would teach my DC amongst other DCs who were 'coming from the same place'. And that isn't a geographical area.
An OFSTED is a useful tool amongst many in choosing a school. But I hope I have been able to demonstrate why 'a good OFSTED' doesn't NECESSARILY imply a top notch school.